Archive · 2 Sep 2026
Delhi High Court Upholds DU Hiring Freeze Amid Exam Concerns
Delhi University selected people for laboratory and library attendant jobs after an examination.
Later, the university became concerned that some test results might not show genuine ability.
Its committees found unusual patterns among successful candidates at certain test centres.
These included very high scores, similar answers and common wrong answers.
Because of these concerns, the university temporarily stopped the appointments.
A lower court had told the university to continue with the appointments.
The Delhi High Court disagreed with that order.
It said protecting a fair and trustworthy recruitment process was more important than immediately allowing the selected candidates to join.
The court also said the National Testing Agency had to provide information that could help verify the exam’s integrity.
The Delhi High Court upheld Delhi University’s decision to pause appointments for laboratory and library attendant posts.
The posts were filled through a National Testing Agency recruitment examination whose merit list faced integrity concerns.
Committees reported unusual success concentrations, high scores despite negative marking, similar response patterns and common wrong answers.
The Division Bench rejected a Single Judge’s view that the university’s inquiry was an afterthought or “reverse engineering.”
The court said appointment offers created no absolute right while the university verified the examination’s legality and fairness.
- Who
- The Delhi High Court, Delhi University, the National Testing Agency and candidates selected for laboratory attendant and library attendant posts.
- What
- The court upheld Delhi University’s decision to keep appointments on hold while investigating suspected unfair means in an NTA recruitment examination.
- When
- The articles do not specify the date of the ruling.
- Where
- Delhi, in proceedings before the Delhi High Court.
- Why
- The university identified material suggesting that the examination’s merit list might not reflect genuine merit and sought to verify the process.
Selected Candidates’ Position
University And Public Interest
Whether appointments should proceed
Selected Candidates’ Position
Candidates selected through the published merit list sought document verification, appointments and joining with consequential benefits, as reflected in the Single Judge’s direction.
University And Public Interest
Delhi University argued that appointments should remain on hold while it examined serious concerns about the examination’s legality and integrity.
Meaning of the university’s inquiry
Selected Candidates’ Position
The Single Judge viewed the subsequent inquiry as an afterthought or as “reverse engineering” to justify withholding the candidates’ joining.
University And Public Interest
The Division Bench found that the committees examined response patterns, including correct and incorrect answers, rather than relying only on suspicion created by high scores.
Individual rights versus recruitment integrity
Selected Candidates’ Position
Selected candidates’ interests favored allowing the appointment process to continue after they had been placed on the merit list.
University And Public Interest
The High Court held that those interests had to be balanced against the public interest in fair, transparent and merit-based appointments, and that appointment offers were not an absolute right.
- Court
- Delhi High Court Division Bench
- Judges
- Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia
- Recruiting institution
- Delhi University
- Examining agency
- National Testing Agency
- Posts involved
- Laboratory attendant and library attendant
- Reported concerns
- Centre-based concentration of successful candidates, unusually high scores despite negative marking, similar response patterns and common incorrect answers
- Court’s outcome
- The university’s notifications keeping joining on hold were upheld; the Single Judge’s contrary direction was quashed